Although he could still change his presidency by introducing things like tax cuts for the poor, environmental legislation, cooling down over North Korea, and generally being more inclusive with the world rather than divisive.

With some sensible policies then his presidency could still be a success. Although there has been none so far so I won't hold my breath.

Trump's term has been an overwhelming success so far. You just refuse to admit it.

As far as Trump successes go let's list them, shall we?

Removed the individual mandate on Obamacare. Win!

Lowered taxes. Win!

Overturned all of Obama's executive actions. Win!

Unemployment the lowest it has been in over 10 years. Win!

Highest consumer confidence in almost 20 years. Win!

Killed the disastrous TPP agreement. Win!

Eliminating waste in government and reducing burdensome regulation. Win!

Ended the abuse of the Antiquities Act for Federal land grabbing. Win!

Illegal border crossings are down. Win! Still need that wall though.

Defeated ISIS Win!

The list goes, on, and on. Trump is a strong leader and he makes me proud to be an American.
He's a man with an unique ability to tap into the zeitgeist of the moment and capitalize on it.
So that makes Trump the right man, at the right place, in the right time for the country.

What happens if the Trump Administration colludes with Russia is not about Trump? Okay.

What is your definition of collusion? Is getting dirt on Hillary from Kremlin sources an act of collusion?

Real collusion would be more like JFK's affair with the female KGB officer, or Sam Giancana's girlfriend, not your weak little nothing burger scandals._________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

There are no grounds for impeachment, even if Trump is "guilty" he didn't break any laws. There are no laws forbidding working and colluding with a foreign nation during election or before. This whole investigation is nothing but a waste of taxpayers money. Not to mention investigations like this can be started only when there is proven violation of law. This is unprecedented to have investigation to find out whether there was something wrong or not. As I said, huge waste of money._________________Please learn how to denote units correctly!

And for the love of god pjp, just because this thread mentions Trump doesn't mean it's about Trump

Except that you and I both know Trump is the only reason you're bringing it up. I'll leave it, provided it doesn't turn into something which should be merged. And by the way, the last time you tried it, your thread was about Trump. At least this one could theoretically be about the subject in the title._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

There are no grounds for impeachment, even if Trump is "guilty" he didn't break any laws. There are no laws forbidding working and colluding with a foreign nation during election or before. This whole investigation is nothing but a waste of taxpayers money. Not to mention investigations like this can be started only when there is proven violation of law. This is unprecedented to have investigation to find out whether there was something wrong or not. As I said, huge waste of money.

This isn't about whether he is guilty or not. What is the recourse if certain things (from the first post) are proved?

Can you see it going like the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal? Found guilty but allowed to carry on like nothing happened?_________________"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt

And for the love of god pjp, just because this thread mentions Trump doesn't mean it's about Trump

Except that you and I both know Trump is the only reason you're bringing it up. I'll leave it, provided it doesn't turn into something which should be merged. And by the way, the last time you tried it, your thread was about Trump. At least this one could theoretically be about the subject in the title.

No it wasn't. Trump's situation throws up interesting subjects that although I wouldn't have thought of them if it wasn't for him, doesn't mean they are about him.

Take this thread for example, I never would have wondered "what happens if..." if it wasn't for Trump but what I am really asking is "what happens when serious allegations are proved against a president"_________________"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt

I wonder if Russian business owners, tied to the Kremlin donated money to Trump, would that be collusion? What if some Russian bankers paid Ivanna half a million for a 20 minute speech. Would that rise to collusion?

By the way. Since HRC was humiliated by a reality tv star, I wonder how much money is coming into the Clinton Foundation?

And morons talk about Russian collusion with Trump. _________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

They can do whatever and their allies will never criticize them. It was okay for the Clintons to "collude" with the Kremlin, but somehow the still unproven accusation that the Trump transition team met with Russians is treasonous.

I typed real slow, so I hope you can understand. _________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

They can do whatever and their allies will never criticize them. It was okay for the Clintons to "collude" with the Kremlin, but somehow the still unproven accusation that the Trump transition team met with Russians is treasonous.

You don't even get the irony, do you? _________________Conservative Trigger Warning: (Thx to Old_School)
Quoting Breitbart News is one step away from quoting "Mein Kampf".

They can do whatever and their allies will never criticize them. It was okay for the Clintons to "collude" with the Kremlin, but somehow the still unproven accusation that the Trump transition team met with Russians is treasonous.

You don't even get the irony, do you?

You don't even read my posts.

I am an equal opportunity critic of government and politicians. Commies and socialists fucks are top on my list, but there are plenty of instances where I criticize politicians of all stripes. You, for example, have a history of only criticizing the more conservative elements of politics, while giving a free ride to authoritarian collectivist dictators.

So it is not irony on my part, but ignorance on yours. _________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

after over a year of investigations and wiretaps, there's still zero evidence of collusion.

even if there was evidence of some sort of dealing with russia, there is no crime of "collusion" ... alan dershowitz, one of the top constitutional lawyers in the US, and a liberal, readily admits this. instead, he actually warns about making fuzzy charges under laws that weren't intended for these kinds of charges in the name of political reasons. he also openly says it's expressly within the president's power to fire the FBI director and cannot be "obstruction of justice".

the indictments laid out so far have zero to do with any sort of collusion, and they're solely to do with tax avoidance, mainly for when people were working for hillary's campaign manager prior to working for trump.

and even more amusing from the stupidity of the left... even if there was evidence of some sort of dealing with russia, and collusion was a crime, they'd be coming after hillary first. hillary's campaign accepted $20m from the government of saudi arabia and millions more from other middle eastern governments. hillary's campaign also accepted millions from foreign illegal immigrant advocacy groups. all of this is ready available on the FEC website. so if trump did collude with russia (he didn't), and collusion with a foreign entity is somehow a crime (it isn't), the records demonstrating hillary is guilty are undisputed and filed by her own campaign with the government. it's laughable that they'd make this argument and push for over a year of investigations for a non-existent crime, when their own candidate's evidence of what they claim is illegal is readily available from the FEC website.

this is one of the many reasons why foreign countries mock the western left. the virtue signaling and hysteria makes them look like total idiots.

just like the word "racism," libtards overuse the term "whataboutism" in cases that are clearly not. there's even an active edit war going on with the wikipedia page for the past year. political issues will always tend to lean liberal on wikipedia because (1) there is no arbiter of truth to say "quit your bullshit", and (2) there are far more unemployed liberal arts majors with way more free time to sit in their parents basements reverting wikipedia pages they don't agree with.

And for the love of god pjp, just because this thread mentions Trump doesn't mean it's about Trump

Except that you and I both know Trump is the only reason you're bringing it up. I'll leave it, provided it doesn't turn into something which should be merged. And by the way, the last time you tried it, your thread was about Trump. At least this one could theoretically be about the subject in the title.

No it wasn't. Trump's situation throws up interesting subjects that although I wouldn't have thought of them if it wasn't for him, doesn't mean they are about him.

Take this thread for example, I never would have wondered "what happens if..." if it wasn't for Trump but what I am really asking is "what happens when serious allegations are proved against a president"

politically, him AND Pence would lose all mandate. Trump can't say 'ok, the evidence is bad, and it's compelling that I colluded with the russians during the election, but the voters really want a wall, so I want funding for a wall'.

There's no mechanism for a 'vote of no confidence' in the US. If he stays on, he'll be politically dead. If he leaves, Pence will take over and the office will be politically dead until the election.The House and the Senate will spend the next 3 years amending the constitution so the laws around colluding are clear and the repubs will spend 3 years trying to distance themselves from the shit show._________________He who calls for full employment calls for war!

That's weird. From looking at Trump's failures so far it's quite obvious there would be a vote of confidence if he was a Prime Minister. But then again electing your head of state is a poor way of doing things. Having your head of state as the head of the party works better for democracy_________________"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt

That's weird. From looking at Trump's failures so far it's quite obvious there would be a vote of confidence if he was a Prime Minister. But then again electing your head of state is a poor way of doing things. Having your head of state as the head of the party works better for democracy

Failures? Domestically he is getting stuff done, he is doing what he said he would do and he is enabling those within the federal gov'n to do what he stated he would do.

His so called failures are faux pas with regards to international diplomacy & politics but do you know what... politicians are what is wrong with politics. They are slimy two-faced bottom feeders. Had mainstream politics not failed soo much then and "alternative" would not have risen.
Likewise look at what is coming out with regards to Clinton and how they ran what can only be describe as an illegal smear campaign against Trump which then got twisted as an official investigation...

The title is: What happens if the Russian investigation is proved? it needs completing: What happens if the Russian investigation is proved to have been orchestrated to undermine democracy

With regards to a vote of no confidence w.r.t. the PM... what you have to appreciate is that position is by protocol is the leader of the ruling party (royal prerogative aside for now) and the ONLY ones who can vote on that position is the party. T.May was made an MP by her constituency, her party made her their leader. She can easily lose that position via the party calling a vote of no confidence BUT that wouldn't change her being an MP as that was democratically chosen by the people.
The president of the United States was democratically elected by the people, the ONLY ones that can call the equivalent of a "vote of no confidence" is the people at the next election. The only two other branches of the federal government that can remove a president are 1) Supreme court *IF* he has violated the constitution 2) the armed forces via a coup d'état. There are other less legal ways to remove him and that is what make being president of the united states the most dangerous job in the world (1 in 11 die)_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king